Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Commercial Gas Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Manchester Corporation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Southern Railway Bill (King's Consent signified),

Read the Third time, and passed.

Grimsby Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered, to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill,

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Maidstone Water Bill [Lords],

North British and Mercantile Insurance Company, Limited, Bill [Lords],

Scottish Provident Institution Bill [Lords],

South Staffordshire Mond Gas Company Bill [Lords],

Read a Second time, and committed.

Yorkshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Royal Commission on Agriculture in India is likely to issue an interim Report; and, if so, when?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): I understand
that a series of interim Reports, containing the evidence taken in India, will be published, commencing in June.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Does that mean that it will be the full conclusions and the evidence?

Earl WINTERTON: I cannot say without notice, but I imagine that it will be a full Report.

PILGRIMAGE TO MECCA.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what number of pilgrims have proceeded from India to Mecca this year as compared with the two previous years; and whether the arrangements for their security and journey between Jeddah and Mecca have been satisfactory?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no information as to the first part of the question. As regards the second part, the arrangements last year were reported to be satisfactory and no information has so far been received indicating that a different state of things is to be expected this year. The date of this year's pilgrimage is 9th June.

CHAMBER OF PRINCES.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India have received any representation from the Chamber of Princes in India in regard to the position of Indian States and the safeguarding of their interests when the constitutional question is again reviewed?

Earl WINTERTON: So far as I am aware, the Government of India have not received any such representation.

ARRESTED PERSONS (HEALTH).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he will give the names of the prisoners detained under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1925, who have, or are suspected to be suffering from, tuberculosis; and whether the Government have under consideration removing these prisoners to surroundings more conducive to the restoration of their health?

Earl WINTERTON: The two persons in question are Jiban Lal Chatterjee and Subhas Chandra Bose. The former was
removed to a sanatorium a month ago. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about Mr. Bose in the course of the next two days.

TRADE UNION ACT (DRAFT RULES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India which of the provincial Governments have published Draft Rules under the Indian Trade Union Act?

Earl WINTERTON: All except those of Coorg and Ajmer-Merwara had done so by 14th April.

STATES RULERS (INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS).

Mr. GARDNER: 6.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether any conference have taken place between the Government of India and rulers of the Indian States with regard to the position of the Indian States in relation to the inquiry to be carried out by the Statutory Commission provided for in the Government of India Act, 1919; and whether the relation between the Indian States and the paramount Power will fall within the view of the above Commission or whether this matter will form the subject of an independent inquiry?

Earl WINTERTON: Some informal discussions have taken place recently between the Viceroy and certain rulers of Indian States. I am not in a position at present to say what passed at those discussions or to make any statement in regard to the matters referred to in the question.

BURMA OIL COMPANY.

Mr. J. HUDSON: 7 and 8.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India (1) whether, in connection with the strike of employés of the Burma Oil Company at Madras, he will state the nature of the grievances alleged by the strikers; and whether any action has been taken by the labour commissioner to help the employés affected to place their case before the company;
(2) whether his attention has been drawn to the clash which occurred on 10th May between the employés of the Burma Oil Company at Madras and other members of the company's establishment when the latter opened fire on the strikers; whether he will state the number of casualties resulting from this
action; and whether any arrests have been made among those responsible for firing?

Earl WINTERTON: The origin of the strike which began on 19th April among the Burma Oil Company's employés was the removal on 21st March of a bench used by three or four men, and a notice suspending 94 men on the ground that alterations were going to be made to certain machines. The Assistant Labour Commissioner took a deputation from the men to the management, and the management agreed to take back all the men sent away on 19th April and promised to give a bench for the four men affected by its removal within one week after the men rejoined for duty, but the men raised other points to which the management did not agree. The Asiatic Petroleum Oil Company's employés struck on 9th May. On 10th May strikers from both companies employés obstructed and attacked three petrol lorries. The installation staff went to rescue the lorries, whereupon the strikers threw stones and caused many injuries both to the staff and the police. The installation staff fired several shots with private firearms and also retaliated with stones. Fifteen strikers were injured, six severely and the rest slightly. The installation staff retreated to their buildings, whereupon the strikers burnt two lorries. The Chief Presidency Magistrate and the Commissioner of Police are holding an inqury.

Mr. HUDSON: Can the Noble Lord say how it came about that the police were not armed on this occasion, and what special permission had been given to the installation staff to carry arms and use them in this way?

Earl WINTERTON: If the hon. Member requires any further information on those points, he had better put a question down. I have given him all the information in my possession.

Mr. HUDSON: Has the Noble Lord any information about the taking away of the benches, not only from the three or four members to whom he referred, but practically from the whole of the workers concerned?

Earl WINTERTON: I have already said that I have given the hon. Member all the information in my possession in my lengthy answer.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the report be available to hon. Members of this House?

Earl WINTERTON: I will inquire into that and see if it is possible.

BRITISH MALAYA (CHINESE).

9. Sir JOHN POWER: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the number of Chinese citizens engaged in trade in British Malaya at the last census; and the number of Chinese immigrants into British Malaya for the latest year for which the figures are available?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): At the last census, out of a total population of Chinese origin of about 1,170,000 roughly 110,000 persons of Chinese race were engaged in trade, as distinguished from manual or clerical labour and other forms of service. As regards the last part of the question the number of Chinese immigrants into the Straits Settlements in 1925 was 214,692. The figures for the Malay States are necessarily not complete, but 19,337 Chinese immigrants are reported to have entered the Federated Malay States by sea in 1925.

Colonel APPLIN: In the return to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred does he include Straits-born Chinese who are British subjects?

Mr. AMERY: Yes. I carefully framed my answer so as to cover both.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Are there restrictions on the citizens of the Chinese Republic engaged in trade in the Malaya?

Mr. AMERY: Not so far as I am aware.

IRAQ (OIL).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether oil has yet been discovered in paying quantities in the vilayet of Mosul or any other part of Mesopotamia; whether it is being worked; and, if so, how much has been extracted up to date?

Mr. AMERY: So far as concerns the Turkish Petroleum Company's concession the answer to the first part of the question
is in the negative, and the remaining parts do not therefore arise. The company did not start drilling operations until the 5th April of this year. The only part of Iraq in which oil is at present being worked is in the area near the Persian frontier known as the Transferred Territories. The production is not at present large, though I have not got the actual figures. Some reference to this area was made in the chairman's statement at the meeting of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company on 2nd November last, which the hon. and gallant Member has perhaps seen.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the Turkish Petroleum Company the only concern searching for oil in Mesopotamia?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, so far as I am aware.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What proportion of the capital of the Turkish Petroleum Company is British?

Mr. AMERY: I could not say off-hand, but a certain proportion is held by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which is a British company; and another portion—I think 20 per cent.—is held by the Shell Company, which is 40 per cent. British.

Mr. HARDIE: Would it not be much better to take the oil from our own coal?

PALESTINE (HAIFA HARBOUR).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what progress has been made with the proposed harbour for large ships at Haifa, in Palestine; whether all the surveys and the final plans for this harbour have been completed; when the work is expected to be completed; and what is the estimated total cost?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to my reply on 21st March to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. Steps are being taken with a view to sending out an engineer to prepare detailed plans and estimates.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can the Colonial Secretary give any idea to the House as to when it is expected that the work will begin?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. I am afraid it would be difficult to give a precise date.

COLONIAL OFFICE CONFERENCE.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the question of Imperial Preference is included in the agenda of the Colonial Office Conference?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir; it is not proposed to discuss Imperial Preference on this occasion.

CROWN COLONIES (COMPULSORY SERVICE).

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is in any other Crown Colony a conscription law similar to the Conscription Bill which has received a Second Reading in the legislative council of Kenya?

Mr. AMERY: In several Crown Colonies provision for compulsory service exists though not exactly on the same lines as those contemplated in the Kenya Defence Force Bill. Ordinarily the enrolment of those not engaging themselves voluntarily is postponed until, owing to inadequate numbers or special emergency, the necessity should arise.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether in these cases there is an oath of allegiance?

Mr. AMERY: I cannot say without notice.

MOMBASA ISLAND (BUILDING PLOTS).

Sir R. HAMILTON: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can state the present position with regard to restrictive covenants in the sale of building plots on Mombasa Island?

Mr. AMERY: The position is still as I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 14th March.

DOMINIONS (GOVERNORS GENERAL).

Viscount SANDON: 15 and 16.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion
Affairs (1) whether the new status of the Governor-General of the Union of South Africa, as announced by the Prime Minister of the Union to come into effect on the 1st July next, will involve any difference between the status of this particular post and its counterpart in the other Dominions, and, if so, in what respect; whether any steps will be taken to bring them all into line; and whether any such formal changes have already taken place or are about to take place in the other Dominions;
(2) whether, in view of the declaration of the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa, despatches will no longer be sent to the Governor-General from his Department; and if he will state what is the position in other Dominions; and whether any new functionary will be established in that and other Dominions to carry on the continuity of correspondence and liaison with the United Kingdom when in the case of the Union it lapses on 1st July?

Mr. AMERY: The position of Governors-General in the Dominions was defined in Section IV (b) of the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations Committee of the Imperial Conference of 1926. It will be seen from the passage in question that it was agreed that the Governor-General should cease to be the formal official channel of communication between His Majesty's Government in Great Britain and His Majesty's Government in any of the Dominions which desired that the existing practice should no longer be continued. In accordance with this agreement and the desire of His Majesty's Government in the Union of South Africa, official communications will not be addressed to the Governor-General after the 1st July, from which date the principle of direct communication between Government and Government takes effect.
A similar change has already been made in the case of official communications to His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State as from the 1st May, and will be made in the case of such communications to His Majesty's Government in Canada as from the 1st July.
As regards the latter part of the second question (No. 16), I would refer my Noble Friend to Section VI of the Report of the Inter-Imperial Relations
Committee. As to the application of the principle laid down in that section, I cannot at present add anything to the replies which I gave him on the 14th February.

QUEENSLAND (STATE ENTERPRISES).

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether, in view of the great interest taken in the question of State trading, he will obtain from His Majesty's Trade Commissioner in Australia a report showing the results of the extensive experiments in State trading which have been carried out in Queensland?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I understand that the Report on State Enterprises in Queensland for the year ended 30th June, 1926, and the Report by the Auditor-General on the Acounts of State Enterprises for the same period, issued by the Queensland Government, can be seen in the Library of the Dominions Office, and my hon. Friend may like to refer to them there.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Would it be possible to place it in the Library of the House?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I will inquire.

Mr. A. HOPKINSON: Would it be possible to add to that report an explanation of the intimate relationship of State Socialism and protective tariffs in Australia?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I think that is too wide a subject to deal with in reply to a question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

CREDIT SCHEMES.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: 18.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to give any further information with regard to the proposed long and short term credit schemes?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): Negotiations are still proceeding with regard to both long and
short term credit, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make any announcement on the subject.

Lieut.-Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: Can my right hon. Friend give me any indication as to when he will be in a position to make a further statement?

Mr. GUINNESS: It is a very intricate subject. The Treasury are in communication with various financial interests, and I can only repeat that as soon as any conclusion is reached I shall be happy to give the earliest information.

Commander WILLIAMS: Is it likely that any information will be available before, say, August?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have explained to the House the difficulty of prophesying. In any case, it is out of the question to pass any legislation during the current Session.

Sir FREDRIC WISE: May I ask whether it is not the fact that these agricultural credit societies have been an absolute failure?

Mr. GUINNESS: No, I do not think that that would be an accurate statement, because the Land Improvement Company, which is, probably, what my hon. Friend is referring to, deals with a much smaller class of need than that which we hope to meet.

Mr. SKELTON: Arising out of the first part of my right hon. Friend's answer, is he satisfied that any progress is being made with the negotiations?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it not the case that the success of schemes of this kind largely depends on the system of land tenure, and the question of security of tenure?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is too large a matter for Question Time.

OUSE DRAINAGE BILL.

Sir HUGH LUCAS-TOOTH: 20.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he proposes to make any progress with the Ouse Drainage Bill before Whitsuntide?

Mr. GUINNESS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on the 28th April, to which I have nothing to add.

CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HANNON: 23.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to a recent resolution passed by the Birmingham City Council requesting that he should make an Order as contemplated by Section 2 of the Importation of Animals Act, 1922, thereby authorising the importation into Great Britain of non-tubercular Canadian cows and heifers; and if he is prepared to accede to the request submitted by the council?

Mr. GUINNESS: The answer to the first part is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to a similar question which was addressed to me on the 7th of April last by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Purcell), a copy of which I am sending to him.

Colonel DAY: Has the right hon. Gentleman had many of these resolutions from councils both in London and in the provinces?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes; I think a sealed pattern resolution was sent round to all the local authorities. A great many urban authorities responded and forwarded these ready-drafted resolutions, but I believe I am right in saying that not a single rural county council accepted the advice given.

Sir ROBERT SANDERS: Is it not the case that such an Order would require the consent of this House?

Mr. GUINNESS: Yes, that is so. There is an overwhelming feeling among agriculturists against any such Order, and there is a great feeling of resentment against this body which, with no foundation, has made most alarmist statements about the health of British cattle.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Has the Minister any information as to what are the vested interests responsible for sending round these circulars to local bodies?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (MALE CLERICAL OFFICERS).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 19.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of male
clerical officers in his Department who are classified A or above average for promotion purposes?

Mr. GUINNESS: The number of such officers varies from year to year. As these reports are regarded as confidential, I am not able to give the particulars asked for, as this information might be regarded as tending to prejudice the confidential nature of the reports.

FISHING INDUSTRY (CREDIT FACILITIES).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is proposing to institute an inquiry into the conditions of the fishing industry in England and Wales, with a view to the provision of credit facilities for this depressed industry where necessary?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not propose to institute any such inquiry as is suggested by the hon. Member, as I have no reason for believing that the fishing industry is suffering from lack of credit facilities.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister made a statement some time ago to the effect that an inquiry would be made?

Mr. GUINNESS: We have. made inquiries—we are continually in touch with the fishing industry—and I have not seen any evidence that such facilities are now necessary. The hon. Member will recollect that certain facilities were given in Scotland, and very small advantage was taken of them.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that credit facilities are necessary for the small fishing people who have neither sufficient money nor material to carry on their normal work, and are obliged to work for large companies, which results in restricting the quantity of fish and increasing prices?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State for the Colonies promised, when the £1,000,000 was voted for Empire development, that he would favourably consider the granting of help to British fishermen?

Mr. GUINNESS: An inquiry is being conducted now, I think, by the Imperial Economic Committee, which is in close touch with the Empire Marketing Board, on the question of the production and sale of fish.

Commander WILLIAMS: Might not some of these funds be used to great advantage in helping the harbours of these fishermen, which are often not in a very good state of repair?

Mr. GUINNESS: I do not think the claims of the harbours could very well be brought under a grant for Empire marketing, admirable as those claims may be.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (FAIR WAGES CLAUSE).

Mr. KELLY: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, how many cases of breaches of the Fair Wages Clause have been reported in regard to any contracts during the last five years?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): The Department does not keep a separate record of all cases in which allegations of breaches of the Fair Wages Clause have been made to them, and the labour entailed in ascertaining the exact number of such cases during the last five years would not appear to be justified.

Mr. KELLY: If it is difficult to give a detailed reply to that question, is it possible for the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department to give a summary of the cases, or some idea of the approximate number in which a breach of the Clause was committed?

Captain HACKING: From such information as is available, I can say that, out of a total of 5,000 contracts, certainly not more than 75 breaches of the Fair Wages Clause have been reported to us.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Is it not the fact that the Government always insist on the Fair Wages Clause being inserted in their contracts?

Mr. SPEAKER: It has to be done.

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 25.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is a condition of all contracts that a fair wages notice shall be exhibited on the works; if so, what steps are taken by the Department to see that this condition is observed; and whether such notice is exhibited in the case of all contracts now running?

Captain HACKING: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The condition is enforced whenever it is brought to the knowledge of the Department that the notice is not exhibited, and so far as is known, it is being exhibited on all contracts now running.

Mr. WILSON: If I bring a case to the notice of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Department, will they look into it?

Captain HACKING: If it is brought to the notice of the Department by anyone, the Department will take the matter up.

HEATH FIRES.

Colonel DAY: 26.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, whether, in view of the fires that have destroyed many acres of heath land, he can state whether any special notices have been issued, in respect of land under the control of Commissioners, to motoring associations or motorists drawing their attention to the danger caused by motoring picnicking parties leaving bottles or other glass about which is likely to act as burning glass from the rays of the sun, which in many cases may originate these fires?

Sir LEOLIN FORESTIER-WALKER (Forestry Commissioner): The Forestry Commissioners asked the Automobile Association to urge upon their members the necessity for taking all possible steps, when visiting woodlands and young plantations, to prevent fires which might be caused (a) by leaving bottles or other glass about which is apt to act as a burning glass for the rays of the sun, (b) by dropping lighted matches, etc., or (c) by lighting fires and failing to extinguish them.

Colonel DAY: Are notices posted up, so that the public can see them?

Sir L. FORESTIER-WALKER: No, they are not; I see no reason why they should not be.

Colonel DAY: Will steps be taken to see that they are posted?

Commander WILLIAMS: Has my hon. Friend's attention also been drawn to the danger of incendiary speeches?

FOODSTUFFS (PRESERVATIVE REGULATIONS).

Mr. HURD: 27.
asked the Minister of Health what classes and quantities of canned goods are imported into this country which, because of the presence in them of preservatives, artificial colouring matter, or for other similar reasons, are barred by law for use in the countries of origin?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): The Preservative Regulations, which prohibit or restrict the addition of preservatives or colouring matters to foodstuffs, are so drawn as to prevent the importation of articles which do not conform to their requirements, and my right hon. Friend is not aware that any canned goods are imported into this country the sale of which is prohibited in the countries of origin for the reasons stated in the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

DURHAM MINERS (POOR RELIEF).

Mr. BATEY: 28.
asked the Minister of Health if he can state the number of miners, in the county of Durham, who have applied for Poor Law relief during the last two years owing to their unemployment benefit being stopped?

Sir K. WOOD: My right hon. Friend regrets that this information is not available.

Mr. BATEY: Is it not possible to ask for the information? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of these boards of guardians have passed resolutions complaining of the miners having been cut off unemployed benefit and come on to the Poor Law, and would it hot be possible to get the numbers?

Sir K. WOOD: No. I do not think so.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the occupation of each applicant is placed upon the paper, and if the figures are sought for they can be obtained?

Sir K. WOOD: Not that I am aware.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is it, not a fact that the hon. Gentleman has only to ask the boards of guardians for the figures and they will gladly give them?

Mr. STEPHEN: Will the hon. Gentleman ask the boards of guardians if they can give the information asked for?

Mr. MAXTON: May I direct your attention, Sir, to the studied offensiveness of the Minister?

Mr. BATEY: May I complain of the answer for this reason, that last week the Scottish Office gave this information? If they could do it, why cannot we have it?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should argue the matter on another occasion.

Mr. BATEY: What is the use of arguing with the Minister?

BENEFIT PAYMENTS.

Mr. STEPHEN: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men and women, respectively,, who received unemployment benefit in 1921, 1922, 1923 and 1924, respectively, and the amount expended in each of those years?

Mr. BETTERTON: Statistics of the number of individuals who receive unemployment benefit in a particular year are not available. The amount expended in unemployment benefit in each of these years was approximately as follows:—

£


1921
58,546,000


1922
47,932,000


1923
39,366,000


1924
37,874,000

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of these sums was contributed by the State?

Mr. BETTERTON: Not without notice. If the hon. Gentleman puts down a question, I will get the information.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA

ANGLO-RUSSIAN RELATIONS.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any overtures from the Russian Government expressive of its willingness and readiness to open negotiations with His Majesty's Government for the purpose of eliminating the existing misunderstanding between both nations and to create friendly relations?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson): The Soviet Chargé d'Affaires expressed again some three months ago in general terms the desire of the Soviet Government for improved relations, but there was no indication of any readiness to meet the conditions previously laid down by His Majesty's Government and stated in the reply to the hon. Member for Lincoln on 8th December last, and the situation therefore remained unchanged.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Has the hon. Gentleman had his attention directed to a speech by M. Rekov, President of the People's Commissars, with regard to this question?

Mr. G. PETO: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the advisability, in order to facilitate these negotiations, of recognising the Leader of the Opposition as the official representative of Russia in this House?

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Have the Soviet Government ever withdrawn their expressed repudiation of British national and private debts?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: That is exactly the answer I was going to give. I have noticed the speech the hon. Member referred to, but there are certain prior conditions that the Soviet will not carry out.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that in that speech M. Rekov expressed the desire of the Russian Government to consider the matter that has been mentioned?

Mr. R. HUDSON: Were these overtures made to His Majesty's Government or to His Majesty's Opposition?

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it not a fact that in the last paragraph of the Trade Agreement
of 1921 it is laid down that Russia recognises the principle of compensation, and has the British Government ever laid down conditions upon which they would be willing to negotiate a settlement since they came into office this time?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It is true, as the hon. Member says, that in the Trade Agreement the Soviet Government said they recognised the principle of payment of their obligations, but, unfortunately, since then categorical statements have been made by the Soviet Government that they do not consider themselves bound by any of these obligations.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Have those statements been made to His Majesty's representative officially?

Miss LAWRENCE: Will the hon. Gentleman rehearse the conditions the British Government have laid down for the resumption of negotiations which the Soviet Government have refused?

Mr. SPEAKER: That cannot he done now.

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has recently received any expression of the desire of the Russian Government to consider the question of very radical disarmament; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will take advantage of such expression to take the necessary steps towards calling-a conference of the Powers to discuss the question of disarmament?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. No such communication has been made to me.

TRADE DELEGATION.

Mr. THURTLE: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the nature of the diplomatic immunity enjoyed by the staff and premises of the Russian trade delegation?

Mr. LUMLEY: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the whole trade delegation of the Soviet Government in Great Britain enjoys diplomatic immunity or only the head of the delegation?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Neither the trade delegation, its staff or premises,
nor the head of it as such, enjoys diplomatic immunity. The head of the delegation is the Official Agent appointed under Article 5 of the Trade Agreement and the privileges he enjoys are those prescribed by Articles 4 and 5 of that Agreement.

Mr. THURTLE: May it not fairly be said that its Official Agent does in fact enjoy what is known as diplomatic immunity—the Official Agent himself?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, I was referring to the Official Agent. There is only one and he is not on the diplomatic list at all and he does not enjoy diplomatic immunity.

FOREIGN STATES (OFFICIAL RELATIONS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with how many States the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics is in official relations?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: According to my information the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics has at present official relations with 22 States.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether, once they have been in relations, there has been any case of relations being broken off again?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I would like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

INDIAN SUBJECTS, SHANGHAI (ARRESTS).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that an action for sedition is being brought against the Indian Nationalist Committee in Shanghai, and that several Indians have been lately arrested in Shanghai; and whether he will inquire how many Indians are now under arrest and the nature of the offence with which they are charged?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I know nothing of the Indian Nationalist Committee at Shanghai or of proceedings against any such body. Five Indians were arrested in Shanghai in March on a charge of attempting to seduce soldiers in His Majesty's Army from their allegiance; two of them were discharged,
and the remaining three were committed and sentenced to 18 months' hard labour followed by deportation, after trial by jury in His Majesty's Supreme Court. One Indian was arrested and committed for trial early in April on a charge of murdering a loyal and distinguished Sikh police officer. Eleven others were arrested on 9th May on a charge of complicity in murder.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: What facilities were given for the proper defence of these Indians who were arrested in Shanghai?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: There is a proper Court at Shanghai where these cases are tried, and the prisoners had every opportunity of having their counsel to defend them.

BRITISH COMMUNITIES

Mr. LOOKER: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the mission which is being sent by the Japanese Government to investigate the condition of the Japanese communities on the Yangtse, and to report what steps might be taken to reinstate them; whether he proposes to take any similar steps on behalf of the British communities; and whether he is in a position to make any statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government as regards securing the resumption of British trading at Chinkiang, Nanking, Wuhu, Kiukiang, and Hankow?

Mr. LOCKER - LAMPSON: His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokio reports that three secretaries left Japan on 10th May to investigate the condition of Japanese refugees on the Yangtse. Their instructions are not to negotiate with anyone, but only to investigate and report on the situation. His Majesty's Government would only need to consider the adoption of some similar course in the event of their finding their present sources of information inadequate. The almost complete cessation of trade at Hankow and Kiukiang and its total cessation at Nanking and Chinkiang are due to the general insecurity for life and property on the Yangtse, and a satisfactory resumption of trade can hardly be expected until some Chinese authority is in a position to discharge the ordinary functions of civilised government and to
secure protection for peaceful and law-abiding citizens. As my right hon. Friend stated a week ago, His Majesty's Government reserve full liberty of action as to the future, and in particular in respect of any further outrages which may be perpetrated on the British flag, British nationals and British property.

Mr. LOOKER: Is the hon. Gentleman aware how great is the anxiety among the British community in China regarding the consequences of this prolonged evacuation of the Yangtse ports, and how serious those consequences may become if the present conditions continue indefinitely?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Government are fully aware of all those facts and our representatives there are doing their utmost for our nationals.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Does not the anxiety show up in a fierce light the failure of the policy of the War Office?

SHANGHAI DEFENCE FORCE (COST).

Sir F. WISE: 56.
asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate cost of the China expeditionary force to as near a date as possible; and what is the approximate cost per week at the present time?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir L. Worthington-Evans): I would refer my hon. Friend to my answers to him on 26th April and to the right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on 2nd May.

Sir F. WISE: Is there any immediate prospect of our getting the cost of this China Expeditionary Force?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I do not gather what the hon. Member means by "getting it." We are paying for it.

Sir F. WISE: May I ask what the actual cost to the country is?

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I have referred my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to him on the 26th April, and also on the 2nd May. I have given in detail the figures up to the 31st March of the current year.

Sir F. WISE: As far as I remember, there was no detail in the reply.

Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I shall have the pleasure of sending a copy of the reply to the hon. Member.

BALTIC STATES.

Mr. WALLHEAD: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any treaties or agreements have been negotiated recently by this country with the Government of Finland; if these treaties or agreements have been registered with the League of Nations and published; whether His Majesty's Government have made any overtures to any of the Baltic States for the purpose of obtaining a lease of a Baltic port for this country; and, if so, for what purpose?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No treaty or agreement has been negotiated recently by this country with the Government of Finland, and His Majesty's Government have not made any overtures to any of the Baltic States for the purpose of obtaining a lease of a Baltic port for this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL MINING INDUSTRY.

DURHAM MINERS IN YORKSHIRE.

Mr. BATEY: 29.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can state the number of Durham miners who have obtained employment in Yorkshire since the 1st December, 1926?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): I have been asked to reply. Exact figures are not available, but so far as I have been able to ascertain the number of Durham miners who have obtained employment in Yorkshire collieries since 1st December, 1926, is about 1,800.

QUARTERLY STATEMENTS.

Mr. BATEY: 30.
asked the Secretary for Mines when the quarterly statements of the coal industry will be again issued by the Mines Department?

Sir B. CHADWICK: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish in a few weeks the particulars that his advisory committee have recommended should be published for the last nine months of
1926. The summary for the March Quarter, 1927, will probably be published about the end of June.

Mr. BATEY: Is not the end of June late to publish the figures for the March quarter? Prior to the stoppage last year the Department published them within six weeks of the end of the quarter.

Sir B. CHADWICK: That is what I am informed.

Mr. BATEY: Where is the Secretary for Mines? Has he already been supplanted?

Mr. PALING: Is the lateness of the report in any way due to the fact that the Mines Department is to be reorganised?

DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

Mr. LUMLEY: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state what privileges diplomatic immunity confers in this country?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I fear it is impossible to compress a satisfactory answer to a question of this sort within the limits of a Parliamentary reply. The privileges conferred in this country are those prescribed by International Law, as to which my hon. Friend will find full information in any of the recognised text books.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is one of these privileges that of engaging in subversive propaganda?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Mr. THURTLE: Has the hon. Gentleman had his attention called to a speech by a member of his own party, saying that the Russian Embassy at Chesham House was soon to be put to the same fate as the Russian Trade Delegation?

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot go into that.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES (COURTS OF INQUIRY).

Mr. W. THORNE: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of times during the last two years employers of labour have asked for a Court of Inquiry into
an industrial dispute under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919, and the number of times an inquiry was held; and the number of occasions trades unions made similar applications and how many times the requests were granted?

Mr. BETTERTON: Since January, 1925, 10 requests have been received for the establishment of a Court of Inquiry under the Industrial Courts Act, 1919. Seven from trade unions, two from joint bodies representative of employers and workmen, and one from employers. In one case a Court was set up, and in this case the application had been made by a trade union. Two cases were referred to joint committees of investigation and conciliation and two to arbitration. In three cases the applicants were referred back to the existing machinery of conciliation, which had not been exhausted. One other case was settled by conciliation, and one is still under investigation.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that, under this Act of 1919, if there is any quarrel between either employers, on one side, or workmen, on the other, you have power to deal with them as to whether they are prepared to go under this Act nr otherwise without any further legislation?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir, that is so. It would be within the discretion of the Minister.

FLOUR (PRICES).

Mr. W. THORNE: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that on Monday last standard grade flour was increased in price from 46s. to 47s. per 280 lbs.; that two weeks prior to that date it was increased by 1s.; and if he can state whether the Food Control Committee are dealing with the matter?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Yes, Sir. These increases follow recent advances in the price of wheat. The Food Council are fully informed of the matter.

COTTON TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. GRUNDY: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in consequence of the recommendation contained in the Report of the Privy Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research for 1925–26, that the direct expenditure by Government on textile researches should be increased, he intends to take any steps to set up a committee of inquiry into the state of the cotton textile industry?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the President of the Board of Trade to the hon. Member for Elland on the 15th February last, to which I have nothing to add.

MINISTRIES (RE-ARRANGEMENT).

Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGAN: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will postpone any action in regard to the Department of Overseas Trade until he has received and considered the Report of the Balfour Committee which has taken evidence on the value and efficiency of that Department?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Churchill): My right hon. Friend has nothing to add to the reply given on the 4th May to the hon. Member for Tamworth.

Sir F. HALL: 69.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that, owing to the decision of the Government to abolish the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Overseas Trade, and the Mines Department, a considerable number of unestablished officers, the majority of whom served in the Great War, have received a month's notice to terminate their employment; and whether, instead of discharging these officers, who are in many instances between 40 and 50 years of age, arrangements will be made for them to be transferred to other departments?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald McNeill): In the departments referred to in my hon. and gallant Friend's question, four members of the temporary staff have recently been given notice of discharge. The notices were not given in consequence of the decision of His Majesty's Government to terminate the separate existence of these three departments but on the ground that the temporary work on which the four employés were engaged was approaching completion.

Sir F. HALL: In considering the future requirements will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration before increasing the number of candidates for examination the utilisation of the services of some of the ex-service men who have done excellent work?

Mr. McNEILL: We always do take that into consideration.

Mr. WHITELEY: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether the functions of the present Mines Department will remain under the control of one Minister, as hitherto, or will be distributed between different departments?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th April to the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison).

Mr. PALING: May I ask whether the functions of the Department are to be continued under the reorganisation scheme, or is the staff of the Mines Department likely to be abolished?

DISARMAMENT.

Mr. THURTLE: 47.
asked the Prime. Minister if he is prepared to take the initiative in calling a conference of the signatories to the Locarno Treaty with the object of considering how best these Powers can stop competition in armaments amongst themselves?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir. As. the hon. Member must be aware, the League of Nations is in course of preparing the ground for a general disarmament conference, and a restricted naval conference convened by the United States Government is due to open next month. The success of these several efforts in the cause of disarmament would hardly be furthered by the introduction of fresh proposals similar in object but dissimilar in kind.

Mr. THURTLE: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it is thoroughly illogical that all these Powers, having signed the Pact of Peace, should be continuing to pile up armaments against each other?

Mr. LOOKER: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Soviet Government has taken part in the Disarmament Conferences referred to?

Captain CROOKSHANK: Will my hon. Friend repudiate the statement made in this question of competition in armaments, as there is no competition at the present time?

MALTA (COMMERCIAL AIRCRAFT FACILITIES).

Sir GERALD STRICKLAND: 49.
asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has considered the opportunities offered by Malta as a centre for fuelling commercial aircraft; what steps are being taken to add to landing places available for commercial liners; and whether he will consider arrangements for allowing the restricted use of military places for civil purposes?

The SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Samuel Hoare): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second and third parts, only Service landing grounds have so far been provided in Malta, but all requests for the use of Air Force facilities for civil air traffic purposes are. sympathetically considered and granted wherever this can be done without detriment to Service requirements.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SCRIPT WRITING.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that, owing to the present system of teaching script writing in schools up to the age of from 12 to 13 years, when the teaching of longhand commences, the handwriting of the rising generation is degenerating; and if, in consultation with local education authorities, he will consider reverting to the system taught in schools prior to the introduction of script writing?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (The Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend is afraid that he cannot accept the suggestion made in the first part of the Question or the assumption upon which it is based. The subject of penmanship will be fully dealt with in the forthcoming edition of the Board's Volume of Suggestions to Teachers, but I may say that the Board have no desire to prescribe any particular system of handwriting,
and are content to leave the matter in the hands of the teachers and local authorities.

Lieut.-Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Will the President of the Board of Education ask for the opinions of local authorities and the teaching profession?

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the Noble Lady ask some of the mothers who have had children taught this way? It really is ruining their handwriting.

Duchess of ATHOLL: My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, be prepared to consider representations from competent authorities.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Noble Lady aware that the handwriting of the rising generation is always degenerating?

FOREIGN LANGUAGES.

Mr. HARRIS: 52.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of local education authorities in England and Wales which permit the teaching of a foreign language in public elementary schools; and are there available any statistics showing the number of elementary schools in this country in which a foreign language is taught and the number of pupils receiving instruction in foreign languages?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The information asked for is not available, nor could it be collected without a considerable expenditure of time and labour which my right hon. Friend does not think would be justified in the circumstances. French is, of course, taught in a number of central schools, and in a few such schools other languages, e.g., German and Spanish, are taken.

Mr. HARRIS: Am I to understand that a great number of schools do teach French and foreign languages, or is it limited to a few?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I think I can only repeat that we have not got the information as regards the public elementary schools. The information relates to a number of secondary schools.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the Noble Lady aware that in the elementary schools in the small island of Malta all the children are taught not less than three languages, and why cannot we have education at least as good?

INTERCHANGE OF TEACHERS.

Mr. HARRIS: 53.
asked the President of the Board of Education with how many European countries have arrangements been made for the interchange of teachers as a method of improving the teaching of foreign languages; how many teachers, if any, from foreign countries are in England at the present time; and how many English teachers under the, arrangement are pursuing their studies or following employment in European countries?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The only official arrangements of the kind referred to at present in existence are with France; they are fully described in Chapter X of the Board's Annual Report for 1924–25. Under these arrangements 54 English students or teachers are engaged during the present year in French schools and training colleges, and 53 students or teachers in similar institutions in England and Wales. In addition, there are, my right hon. Friend understands, a number of unofficial arrangements for interchange, but he has no details of their working.

Mr. HARRIS: Is it intended to extend these arrangements to other countries so as to improve the language facilities of this country?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider proposals of that kind.

TEACHERS, BRITISH EMPIRE (SALARIES AND SUPERANNUATION).

Mr. HARRIS: 54.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is aware that difficulties with regard to the recognition of teaching service for the purpose of assessment of salary and for the purpose of calculation of service for superannuation tend to restrict the movement of British teachers as between the British Dominions and the British Isles; whether he will bring this subject before the next Imperial Education Conference; and whether teachers who have taken up teaching posts in the Dominions with the encouragement of the home education authorities are now at a disadvantage as regards the amount of pension which they may claim as compared with teachers of similar service at home?

Duchess of ATHOLL: The difficulties referred to are to be discussed at the meeting of the Imperial Education Conference next month. As regards the last part of the question, my right hon. Friend is not quite clear as to the exact point which the hon. Member has in mind, but the question of reciprocity in pension schemes between this country and other parts of the Empire is also to be considered at the conference.

Mr. COVE: Since the question has been discussed at the conference, can the Noble Lady say whether the teachers' organisation will he officially represented there?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I should like to have notice of that question.

TAXI-CABS (FARES).

Colonel DAY: 57.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received a letter of protest addressed to him from the conference of the London cab trade, which was held on Saturday, 30th April, stating that the conference considered the Home Secretary has failed to carry out the pledges which were given to the cab trade on 5th April, 1927, in the matter of concessions in exchange for their assent to the present reduction in fares; whether he is aware that the conference of the cab trade has threatened to withdraw its consent to such,reduction of fares; and if he can state what steps he has taken to carry out the conditions which were promised to the cab trade?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I would refer the hon. Member to the letter which I addressed to the Federation of Taxi-cab Proprietors, which was published in the Press on the 6th instant. I will send the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. B. SMITH: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the letter which he sent to the Press is, at least, beside the truth?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The hon. Member has known me for some years, and I think he will regret that he has made that observation.

Mr. SMITH: The letter that was sent to the Press contains statements that
were other than true, and I tusk the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the light of the statement he made in my presence to 24 delegates of the cab trade that he would withdraw the two-seater cabs, he has not failed in that pledge?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot allow a matter of that kind to be discussed at Question Time.

Colonel DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the concession of a reduction in fares made by the cab trade was only experimental and, if so, how long will the experiment continue?

Sir FRANK MEYER: Will the Home Secretary bear in mind that the public of London would much prefer to walk than to be dictated to by a section?

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 58.
asked the Home Secretary whether steps will be taken to cause to be more legible the new taximeters called for by recent adjustments of fares?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This matter has been receiving attention for some time and has been taken up with the taximeter manufacturers. The suitability of the converted taximeters with regard to legibility will be closely considered when they are submitted for approval.

WOMEN AND GIRLS (PROBATION).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 60.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in some Courts the women and girls who are released on probation are placed under the supervision of local superintendents of rescue homes; and whether he will take steps to end this practice?

Sir W. OYNSON-HICKS: Courts are empowered by the existing law to insert a condition as to residence in a probation order, and I am aware that in some cases probationers are required as a condition of their probation to live in a home for the whole or part of the period of probation. The Young Offenders Committee commented on this practice in their recent report, and their recommendations will receive careful consideration.

LONDON NUT FOOD COMPANY, BATTERSEA (EMPLOYES' ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 61.
asked the Home Secretary if he is aware, in the case of the girl workers' premises of the London Nut Food Company's works at Battersea, that insufficient lavatory accommodation is provided; the cloakroom is kept in an insanitary condition and numerous leaks in the roof are left unrepaired; and will he state whether these premises have lately been inspected by one of His Majesty's factory inspectors?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The report I have received shows that the sanitary accommodation is up to the general standard and that the roof over the cloakroom which has been leaking has been under repair for the last four or five weeks. The premises, which were visited this morning by the factory inspector, had been visited twice in the early part of this year and also in October last. The inspector will keep the factory under observation.

ARCOS LIMITED (POLICE SEARCH).

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: 62.
asked the Home Secretary if he will state how many persons were found on the premises of Arcos when raided by the police on the 12th May, and what was their nationality?

Captain FANSHAWE: 63.
asked the Home Secretary how many persons found on the premises of Arcos, on Thursday, 12th May, were members of the Dismissed Police and Prison Officers' Association?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I am informed that there were approximately 250 persons, and that so far as is known none were members of the association referred to. I am not in a position to furnish particulars of their nationality.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: Can it be understood that the names and addresses of these people have been taken?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR: Were the persons concerned members of the staff of Arcos, or were there people there in the course of business who were not attached to the staff?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think the only persons included in the answer to this question were those who were employed on the premises.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 59.
asked the Home Secretary whether he authorised the raid on the offices of the Arcos Company in London on Thursday the 12th instant; and will he state the reasons for such action?

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON: 64.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is now able to give the House further information with regard to the police raid upon the premises of Arcos, Limited; whether the search warrant also authorised a raid upon the premises of the Russian trade department; and whether, in fact, these premises have been raided?

Mr. A. HENDERSON (by Private Notice): asked the Home Secretary if he is now in a position to give a reply to the questions submitted at the last sitting of the House with regard to the raid on the premises of Arcos, Limited?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will answer these questions together.
The information which, as I have already informed the House, was sent to me on Wednesday evening last by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, satisfied me that a certain official document was or had been improperly in the possession of a person employed in the premises occupied by Arcos, Limited, at 49, Moorgate. That document bore on its face a statement that it was the property of His Majesty's Government and was not to be circulated either directly or indirectly to the Press or to any person not holding an official position in His Majesty's Service; it was, in fact, a document of which unauthorised persons were known to be attempting to obtain copies. In view of that information I at once consulted with the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, and with their knowledge and assent I authorised the police to apply for a warrant under the Official Secrets Acts to search the premises occupied by Arcos, Limited, at 49, Moorgate. The building bearing that address is shared by Arcos, Limited, and the Russian Trade Delegation, and there is free inter-communication throughout the building. The warrant accordingly authorised the search of the premises occupied by Arcos, Limited, and the
Trade Delegation, and the search was carried out in strict conformity with the warrant. I am informed that the search only came to an end at 12 o'clock last night. The document in question was not found, but the police have taken possession of certain papers which might bear upon the matter, and the examination of those papers is still proceeding.

Mr. HENDERSON: May I ask whether it is the right hon. Gentleman's intention to give a fuller statement at a later sitting of the House, and whether in the event of the Opposition desiring to debate that statement facilities will he afforded by the Government for the purpose?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The reply to the first part of the question is, certainly. I have seen some of the documents myself. They are still being examined, and in the course of two or three days I hope I shall be able to make a fuller statement to the House. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to question my conduct, or the conduct of the Government, the usual means are open to him, and I suppose that the Vote for my salary can be put down for any convenient day.

Mr. HENDERSON: The House must appreciate the fact that the issues raised by the raid that has been made are of such importance and so far-reaching that it is quite impossible for them to be discussed by way of question and answer, but the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the Vote for his salary should be put down does not meet the case, and unless I can get some satisfaction that the Government will afford time—the Government would not be affording time if it was a case of taking one of the Opposition Supply days—unless the Government will give an assurance that that time will be afforded, I think the Opposition will be entitled to ask for the Adjournment of the House.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as that is concerned, I cannot dictate to the right hon. Gentleman what form the attack he proposes to make should take. I have suggested that if he wishes to attack me in issuing the authorisation the Vote for my salary should be put down. On the other hand, if it is of such importance that he thinks it desirable to
move a Vote of Censure on the Government as a whole, of course a day will be found for that purpose.

Mr. CLYNES: Pending any further discussion of the matter, can the Home Secretary say how the information is being supplied to the Press with regard to these private transactions of the Government? Is it being supplied by representatives of His Majesty's Government or by their agents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is quite impossible for anyone to say how it is being supplied. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that my life was made a burden to me yesterday by the Press. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at certainly one newspaper that I saw this morning, he will find that I distinctly said, "I cannot, and will not, answer any more questions."

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Whether documents are discovered or not, it is obviously a very grave matter, which may not be discussed in the form of a Vote of Censure, but obviously it ought to be discussed. May I ask the Home Secretary meanwhile when he expects to make a full statement to the House? When that statement is made obviously is the time to put a question to the Prime Minister as to the form which discussion should take. Whatever may be discovered or not discovered, it is a very grave matter indeed.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think that I shall be in a position to make a full statement on Thursday, if that will meet the convenience of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. PONSONBY: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether this raid was timed by him to coincide with the Committee stage of the Trade Unions Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the kind of question that carries an insinuation.

Mr. R. HUDSON: Will it be possible to discuss on Thursday the action of the Russian Chargéd 'Affaires in making representations to His Majesty's Opposition?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I wish to put a question on quite a different
matter. With reference to the allegations that have been made about the searching of women by the police, of course, naturally, I accept the statement that no male police searched women, but were the police accompanied by women searchers, and, if not, how the right hon. Gentleman knows what documents were taken out by the female staff?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: As far as that is concerned, I made personal inquiries of the heads of police, both of the Metropolitan and City Police, who actually carried out the warrant, and they assured me that no woman was searched on the premises. All that happened was that their handbags were searched as they left the premises.

Lieut.- Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that they could take out 100 documents?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The police are always courteous to women.

Commander LOCKER - LAMPSON: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether the theft of this secret document by members of Arcos is not a breach of the Trade Agreement?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a matter for debate.

Mr. HARDIE: The Home Secretary in his statement said that before action was taken he consulted with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. In the Press during the last two days there has been published a statement, as given by the Foreign Secretary in reply to a question, that he knew nothing about it. I hope the Home Secretary will see that that is contradictory. My next point is this. I want to ask now that the search is over, are the same powers that brought about the destruction in the search to be used to put the building into order?

Mr. WALLHEAD: On a point of Order. I want to ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in order for the hon. Member for Handsworth (Commander Locker-Lampson) to make the allegation that this document was stolen by the Soviet authorities?

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend said it was stolen.

Mr. SPEAKER: That is the very reason why I intervened. Supplementary questions carrying insinuations ought not to be put.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Should not the question of the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander LockerLampson) be withdrawn?

Mr. LANSBURY: I want to ask the Home Secretary a. definite question. Does he definitely state that the document that he has mentioned was stolen by someone connected with the Arcos Company?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be better to deal with that subject in debate. What I have said and what I repeat is that I am satisfied that this document was, or is, in the Arcos building. I was satisfied of that before I issued the warrant.

Mr. LANSBURY: The statement made by the hon. and gallant Member for Handsworth (Commander LockerLampson) was that it was stolen by the Arcos authorities. I simply want to ask the right hon. Gentleman, does he say that that statement is true?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I adhere to the statement I have made. I was satisfied before I authorised the warrant to be issued that this particular document certainly had been in the possession of Arcos.

Mr. THURTLE: Arising out of the last reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is prepared to give to the House proof of the statement he has just made, to the effect that he is satisfied that the document either was or is in the Areas building?

Major MacANDREW: Have any steps been taken to deal with the person responsible for this document, which has apparently been stolen?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: At present I am not in a position to make a statement in regard to that. The question should be put to my right hon. Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it the case that a large number of documents were in course of being burned when the police entered the building?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I think it would be perhaps better that I should defer answering the supplementary questions until Thursday, when I will make a full statement.

Mr. WALLHEAD: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it would be better to defer the matter until Thursday.

Mr. LANSBURY: Give them time to think!

FINANCE BILL.

TOBACCO DUTY (BETAIL PRICES).

Colonel DAY: 65.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that since his Budget statement, in which he announced the Government's intention of placing a tax of 8d. a pound on tobacco, many tobacco companies have increased the price of their cheaper tobaccos by 9d. a pound; and will he consider the introduction of legislation to prohibit tobacco companies charging the public an extra 1d. a pound in addition to the proposed tax?

Mr. CHURCHILL: My attention has been called to a statement in the Press that the retail price of certain tobaccos sold by the half-ounce has been increased by an amount equivalent to 9d. per lb. and that the manufacturers have increased their prices in such cases by 7d. per lb. I am informed that the manufacturers have provided, as they did in similar circumstances in 1909, an alternative packet for the purchaser's choice containing slightly more that one-thirty-fourth of a pound to be sold retail at the pre-Budget price for the half-ounce. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Colonel DAY: If I send to the right hon. Gentleman proof that they charge 9d. per lb., will he take some action?

Mr. CHURCHILL: No, Sir.

Colonel DAY: Are there no steps which the right hon. Gentleman will take to see that the public are not robbed in this matter?

Sir F. HALL: Is it not a fact that tobacco manufacturers have to pay their duty before they withdraw from bond, and is it not only reasonable that, if they
have to pay that, some reasonable compensation should be given to them for loss of interest?

INCOME TAX.

Mr. THURTLE: 67.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is in a position to state the approximate revenue which could be derived from the imposition of a special surtax of 2s. in the £ in addition to existing taxation on all unearned incomes exceeding £500?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I regret I am unable to furnish the desired estimate, as there are no Income Tax statistics in existence showing the amounts of investment income held by individuals in different ranges of income.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of the use that this might be in the future, will the right hon. Gentleman endeavour to get the information?

Mr. CHURCHILL: Evidence was given before the Colwyn Committee, which gives some figures as far as they could be estimated relative to this particular point, but not on quite the same basis. The limitation of £500 was not introduced, and it is that limitation which makes it rather difficult to give the exact figures. I should be very glad to give the hon. Member the reference to the Colwyn Committee's Report, upon which, I have no doubt, he can found any propaganda in which he wishes to engage.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has made any inquiries on this matter from the Independent Labour party as to statistics on this matter?

TRADE FACILITIES ACT (GUARANTEES).

Sir F. WISE: 66.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can give the percentages of the total amount of the guarantee of the various important trades of the £75,000,000 guaranteed under the Trade Facilities Act?

Mr. CHURCHILL: I will circulate the statement asked for in the form of a table in the OFFICIAL REPORT. But my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the advantages given by the Trade Facilities guarantees accrued as much or more to the
manufacturers of the capital equipment supplied as to the trades which raised the guaranteed loan.

The percentages are as follow:


Trade.
Amount of Guarantee. £
Percentage of Total.


Shipbuilding
21,640,585
29.1


Railways Construction and Equipment:




Electrical
12,583,000
17.0


Other
6,230,000
8.4


Electrical:




Hydro Electric
7,000,000
9.5


Other (Generation, Distribution and Traction)
8,004,600
10.8


Coal Mining
4,291,000
5.8


Paper and Pulp Manufacture
2,535,000
3.4


Dock Extensions, Quays and additional Harbour Facilities
3,375,345
4.5


Sugar Beet Factories
2,420,000
3.2


Chemical Works
2,000,000
2.7


Iron, Steel and Engineering
1,161,050
1.6


Miscellaneous
3,011,200
4.0



74,251,780
100

TRANSPORT.

MOTOAR OMNIBUSES.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of omnibuses plying for hire on definite recognised routes in Great Britain at the present time and the number in 1922?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): There are no returns furnished to my Department which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's question.

ROAD EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any experimental work has yet been carried out by his Department under the Roads Improvement Act, and of what nature?

Colonel ASHLEY: Experiments in the use of various surfacing materials are being conducted on a considerable scale along the new arterial roads known as the Barnet By-pass and the Barking Bypass. Experimental investigations are also being made into the problems of skidding, and the influence of vehicle
design upon the wear inflicted upon highways. Although some time must elapse before conclusive results can be obtained, I hope to include an interim account of the work in the next Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the total number of passengers carried on the railways of Great Britain during March and April of this year, and for the same months of last year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not yet received the information for the months of March and April of this year. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with the figures when they are available.

LONDON TRAFFIC SCHEME.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the independent omnibus proprietors will be included in any scheme for the co-ordination of London traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope so. In my view the inclusion of the independent omnibus proprietors would be an essential feature of any satisfactory scheme of co-ordination.

DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport when information may be given to this House as to the progress of the consideration promised last year to the necessity for examination or other methods for discriminating what physical or other disabilities should bar the possession of a driver's licence?

Colonel ASHLEY: My proposals for dealing with applicants for drivers' licences who suffer from physical dilsabilities are contained in Clauses 14 and 15 of the draft Road Traffic Bill which I circulated a short time ago.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask whether the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman lay it down that they shall be total abstainers?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the Noble Lady will read Clauses 14 and 15 she will see that the answer is in the negative.

Viscountess ASTOR: Considering the number of accidents which occur from people taking a little too much, will the right hon. Gentleman consider this question seriously?

FISHING INDUSTRY (FREIGHTS).

Mr. GRUNDY: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an expansion of the fishing industry is discouraged by the relatively high freightage rates charged for the transport of fish; and whether he will implement the promise made by his predecessor to take steps to bring the parties together for a discussion with regard to it?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it would be difficult to maintain that the rates charged for carriage of fish are high, either in relation to the rates charged for other perishable commodities or to the increased cost of working the railways. As regards the second part of the question, my predecessor prepared the way for a meeting between representatives of the fishing industry and of the railways, but I understand that after further discussion the representatives of the fishing industry decided not to carry the matter further. No serious complaint of excessive rates for the carriage of fish has reached me during my term of office.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer could not be heard at all on this side of the House?

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (BLOOMSBURY SITE).

51. Mr. DALTON (for Mr. TREVELYAN): asked the President of the Board of Education whether the University of London has arranged to purchase the Bloomsbury site from the Duke of Bedford; what the terms of purchase are; and how much is being provided by His Majesty's Government and how much from other sources?

Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to reply.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am informed that no contract has yet been
signed. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House on the 9th November last, he promised in June, 1926, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they would be prepared, within certain financial limits, to ask Parliament to make provision for improved accommodation of the university, subject to approval by the Treasury of plans to be formulated by the Senate. No official intimation has yet reached the Treasury, and I am at present unable to give any further information save that the amount which Parliament would be asked to provide towards the improved accommodation f the university would be, approximately, one-half the price paid by the Government for the Bloomsbury site, which was £425,000.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Is the Government grant conditional on the removal of King's College from Somerset House, or

Division No. 125.]
AYES
[3.59 p.m.


Acland-Troyte. Lieut. -Colonel
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fermoy, Lord


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cayzer, MaJ. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Fielden, E. B.


Albery, Irving James
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)
Cecil. RJ. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Foster, Sir Harry S.


Applln, Colonel R. V. K.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Fraser, Captain Ian


Ashley, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Frece, Sir Walter do


Astor. Viscountess
Chllcott, Sir Warden
Fremantle, Lt. -Col. Francis E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Christie, J. A.
Gadie, Lieut. -Col. Anthony


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Ganzonl. Sir John.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Churchman. Sir Arthur C.
Gates, Percy


Balniel, Lord
Clarry, Reginald George
Gllmour, Lt. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Clayton, G. C.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goff. Sir Park


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cockerill, Brig. -General Sir George
Grace, John


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland. N.)


Bennett, A. J.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Grant, Sir J. A.


Berry, Sir George
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bethel, A.
Cooper, A. Duff
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Betterton, Henry B.
Cope, Major William
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton)
Couper, J. B.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w. E)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crowe)
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Brass, Captain W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Llndsey, Gainshro)
Hall, Lleut. -Col. SirF. (Dulwich)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hall, Admiral Sir R. (Eastbourne)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Dalkelth, Earl of
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad.)


Briggs, J. Harold
Dalziel, Sir Davison
Hammersiey, S. S. 


Brlscoe, Richard George
Davidson, J. (Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd)
Hanbury, C. 


Brocklebank, C. E. R. 
Davies, Ma|. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brooke. Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Harland, A.


Broun-Lindsay, Major H.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Harrison. G. J. C.


Brown, Brig. -Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Drewe, C.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth. Kennlngton)


Buckingham. Sir H.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Haslam, Henry C. 


Bullock, Captain M.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hawke, John Anthony


Burman, J. B.
Elveden, Viscount
Headlam, Lleut. -Colonel C. M.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord(Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Henderson, Lleut. -Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Butter, Sir Geoffrey
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Heneage, Lieut-Colonel Arthur P.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Everard, W. Lindsay
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Caine, Gordon Hall
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Cassels, J. D. 
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Hills Major John Walter

is it made without any condition of that kind?

Mr. McNEILL: I really cannot say. The negotiations have not yet been completed.

Mr. J. JONES: May I be allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are going to consider the advisability of increasing the accommodation for hon. Members in this House, seeing that we are going to increase the accommodation for university schools?

TRANSPORT.

MOTOAR OMNIBUSES.

Mr. ROBERT MORRISON: 70.
asked the Minister of Transport the number of omnibuses plying for hire on definite recognised routes in Great Britain at the present time and the number in 1922?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): There are no returns furnished to my Department which would enable me to answer the hon. Member's question.

ROAD EXPERIMENTS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 71.
asked the Minister of Transport whether any experimental work has yet been carried out by his Department under the Roads Improvement Act, and of what nature?

Colonel ASHLEY: Experiments in the use of various surfacing materials are being conducted on a considerable scale along the new arterial roads known as the Barnet By-pass and the Barking Bypass. Experimental investigations are also being made into the problems of skidding, and the influence of vehicle
design upon the wear inflicted upon highways. Although some time must elapse before conclusive results can be obtained, I hope to include an interim account of the work in the next Annual Report on the Administration of the Road Fund.

RAILWAY PASSENGERS.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 72.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give the total number of passengers carried on the railways of Great Britain during March and April of this year, and for the same months of last year?

Colonel ASHLEY: I have not yet received the information for the months of March and April of this year. I shall be happy to furnish the hon. Member with the figures when they are available.

LONDON TRAFFIC SCHEME.

Mr. CAMPBELL: 73.
asked the Minister of Transport whether the independent omnibus proprietors will be included in any scheme for the co-ordination of London traffic?

Colonel ASHLEY: I hope so. In my view the inclusion of the independent omnibus proprietors would be an essential feature of any satisfactory scheme of co-ordination.

DRIVERS' LICENCES.

Sir G. STRICKLAND: 74.
asked the Minister of Transport when information may be given to this House as to the progress of the consideration promised last year to the necessity for examination or other methods for discriminating what physical or other disabilities should bar the possession of a driver's licence?

Colonel ASHLEY: My proposals for dealing with applicants for drivers' licences who suffer from physical dilsabilities are contained in Clauses 14 and 15 of the draft Road Traffic Bill which I circulated a short time ago.

Viscountess ASTOR: May I ask whether the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman lay it down that they shall be total abstainers?

Colonel ASHLEY: If the Noble Lady will read Clauses 14 and 15 she will see that the answer is in the negative.

Viscountess ASTOR: Considering the number of accidents which occur from people taking a little too much, will the right hon. Gentleman consider this question seriously?

FISHING INDUSTRY (FREIGHTS).

Mr. GRUNDY: 21.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that an expansion of the fishing industry is discouraged by the relatively high freightage rates charged for the transport of fish; and whether he will implement the promise made by his predecessor to take steps to bring the parties together for a discussion with regard to it?

Mr. GUINNESS: I think it would be difficult to maintain that the rates charged for carriage of fish are high, either in relation to the rates charged for other perishable commodities or to the increased cost of working the railways. As regards the second part of the question, my predecessor prepared the way for a meeting between representatives of the fishing industry and of the railways, but I understand that after further discussion the representatives of the fishing industry decided not to carry the matter further. No serious complaint of excessive rates for the carriage of fish has reached me during my term of office.

Mr. WALLHEAD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer could not be heard at all on this side of the House?

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (BLOOMSBURY SITE).

51. Mr. DALTON (for Mr. TREVELYAN): asked the President of the Board of Education whether the University of London has arranged to purchase the Bloomsbury site from the Duke of Bedford; what the terms of purchase are; and how much is being provided by His Majesty's Government and how much from other sources?

Mr. McNEILL: I have been asked to reply.
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, but I am informed that no contract has yet been
signed. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in the House on the 9th November last, he promised in June, 1926, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, that they would be prepared, within certain financial limits, to ask Parliament to make provision for improved accommodation of the university, subject to approval by the Treasury of plans to be formulated by the Senate. No official intimation has yet reached the Treasury, and I am at present unable to give any further information save that the amount which Parliament would be asked to provide towards the improved accommodation f the university would be, approximately, one-half the price paid by the Government for the Bloomsbury site, which was £425,000.

Mr. P. HARRIS: Is the Government grant conditional on the removal of King's College from Somerset House, or

is it made without any condition of that kind?

Mr. McNEILL: I really cannot say. The negotiations have not yet been completed.

Mr. J. JONES: May I be allowed to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government are going to consider the advisability of increasing the accommodation for hon. Members in this House, seeing that we are going to increase the accommodation for university schools?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).

The House divided: Ayes, 286; Noes, 114.

Hoare, Ll. -Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Meller, R. J. 
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Maryiebone)
Merriman, F. B.
Skelton, A. N.


Hohier, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Meyer, Sir Frank
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne. C.)


Holt, Capt. H. P.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Mitchell. S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Smithers, Waldron


Hope, Sir Harry (Fortar)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hopkins, J. W. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Moore. Lieut. -Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Moore, Sir Newton J.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will's den,E.)


Horlick, Lleut. -Colonel J. N.
Morden, Col. W. Grant
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Howard-Bury, Lieut. -Colonel C. K.
Moreing, Captain A. H.
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Morrison, H. (Wilts. Salisbury)
Streatfelld, Captain S. R.


Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd. Whlteh'n)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Strickland, Sir Gerald


Hume, Sir G. H.
Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Hurd, Percy A.
Nelson, Sir Frank
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurst, Gerald B.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Styles, Captain H. Walter


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Mldl'n & Peebles)
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Prater


Illffe. Sir Edward M.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld.)
Tasker, R. Inigo.


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Templeton. W. P.


Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Nuttall, Ellis
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Jacob, A. E.
Oakley, T.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


James, Lieut. -Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Pennefather, Sir John
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Penny. Frederick George
Ward, Lt. -Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Lamb, J. Q.
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Watts, Dr. T.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Pildltch, Sir Philip
Wells, S. R.


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
White, Lieut. -Col. Sir G. Dalrymple-


Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Williams, A M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Preston, William
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)


Loder, J. de V.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Looker, Herbert William
Reid. D. D. (County Down)
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Lowe, Sir Francis William
Remnant, Sir James
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfleld)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Rentoul, G. S.
Winby. Colonel L. P.


Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Rice, Sir Frederick
Wlndsor-Clive, Lieut. -Colonel George


Lumiey, L. R.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. Of W.)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Wolmer, Viscount


McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


MacIntyre. Ian
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut. -Colonel E. A.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


McLean, Major A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wood, Sir S. Hill-(High Peak)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Salmon, Major I.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Worthlngton-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Sandon, Lord



Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustavs D. 
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Malone, Major P. B.
Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Colonel Gibbs and Major Sir Harry Barnston


Mannlngham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)



Margesson, Capt. D.
Shaw, Lt. -Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, w.)





NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Kenworthy, Lt. -Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gardner, J. P.
Lansbury, George


Ammon, Charles George
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Lawrence, Susan


Attlee, Clement Richard
Glbbins, Joseph
Lawson, John James


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gillett, George M.
Lindley, F. W.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Gosling, Harry
Livingstone, A. M.


Barnes, A.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lunn William


Batey, Joseph
Greenall, T.
Macdonald. Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Bondfield, Margaret
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Mac Neill-Weir, L.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W
Grentell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Mac pherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Brlant, Frank
Greves T.
March, S.


Broad, F. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Maxton, James


Bromley. J.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Montague, Frederick


Brown, Ernest(Leith)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Morris, R. H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buxton. Rt. Hon. Noel
Hardie, George D.
Mosley, Oswald


Charleton, H. C. 
Harris, Percy A.
Oliver, George Harold


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
palln, John Henry


Cove, W. G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Paling, W.


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hirst, G. H.
Pethick-Lawrence. F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Hirst, W. (Bradford. South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Davles, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hudson, J. H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Day Colonel Harry
Hutchison. Sir Robert (Montrose)
Ritson, J.


Dennison, R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Duncan C.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Rose, Frank H.


Dunnico. H.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)
Sakiatvala, Shapurji


Evans, Capt. Ernest(Welsh Univer.)
Jones, Morgan(Caerphilly)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Fenby, T. D.
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John


Forrest W.
Kennedy, T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis




Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Strauss, E. A.
Watts-Morgan, Lt. -Col. D. (Rhondda)


Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Calthness)
Taylor, R. A.
Wellock, Wilfred


Smith, Ben(Bermondsey, Rolhterhithe)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Rennie (Penlstone)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Snell, Harry
Thurtle, Ernest
Windsor, Walter


Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Tinker, John Joseph
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Stamford, T. W.
Varley, Frank B.



Stephen, Campbell
Vlant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Wallhead, Richard C.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
That in the case of the Gains-borough Bridge Bill [Lords], Petition for additional Provision, the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:— That the parties be permitted to insert their additional Provision if the Committee on the Bill think fit.

Resolution agreed to.

CROWN LANDS (No. 2) BILL.

Reported, with an Amendment, from the Select Committee, with Minutes of Evidence.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 67.]

Bill, as amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Wednesday.

Orders of the Day — TRADE DISPUTES AND TRADE UNIONS BILL.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I beg to move,
That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

Orders of the Day — (1) Committee Stage.

Twelve allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table.

TABLE I.—(Committee Stage.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
Clause 1 down to the beginning of sub-section (2).
10.30


Second
Rest of Clause 1
10.30


Third
Clause 2
10.30


Fourth
Clause 3 down to the beginning of sub-section (2).
10.30


Fifth
Rest of Clause 3
10.30


Sixth
Clause 4 down to the beginning of sub-section(2).
10.30


Seventh
Rest of Clause 4
10.30


Eighth
Clause 5
10.30


Ninth
Clause 6 to the beginning of sub-section(2).
7.30


Rest of Clause 6
10.30


Tenth
Clause 7
10.30


Eleventh
Clause 8
10.30


Twelfth
New Clauses, Schedules, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
10.30

Orders of the Day — (2) Report Stage.

Three allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table:


TABLE II.—(Report Stage.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


Thirteenth
New Clauses
10.30


Fourteenth
Clauses 1 and 2
10.30


Fifteenth
Rest of Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion.
10.30

Orders of the Day — (3) Third Beading.

One allotted day shall he given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order conies into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply, and Government Business shall have precedence on any allotted day except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the precedence of Business at different sittings.

Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for reference to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of winch notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing
Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings which under this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

This Resolution has reference to the Business of the House and the allocation of time on a Bill which is at present before the House. I do not know how many Members there may be in the House, but there must be a very large number, who have had no experience of this allocation of time by the application of what is usually termed the guillotine. It may be of some interest to them to know that this allocation of time has been a growth of about the last 30 years. It is a rather remarkable fact that neither this Government nor the Government before it have felt it necessary to make a Motion of this kind, and it is actually six years since such a Motion has been made. I would like to remind the House of a very pregnant remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) when he said only six years ago:
Everybody who has been in charge of Parliamentary business"—
and then he alluded to Lord Balfour, to Lord Oxford, to Mr. Bonar Law, and to the present Foreign Secretary and said that—
every one of thorn, each in turn from a different point of view, leading parties or combination of parties, have all been driven for the last 30 years to the conclusion that it is impossible to work the Parliamentary machine"—
and then he added:
to work it at all without this process.
Of course, it is for the decision—and it is not always an easy decision to make—of the Leader of the House as to which will cause the greater inconvenience to the House, the moving of such a Motion, or allowing the Debate to go on without such a, Motion but with the attendant disadvantages of frequent late sittings. I remember very well when the right hon. Gentleman introduced his famous Finance Bill and we had a perfectly free Debate which lasted a long time. I could not charge my memory with the number of days, but I remember that my right hon. Friend and his friends had the advantage of being in a majority. They had an easy time, for we were in a small minority in those days. I remember we had two and three all-night sittings in a week. It was the hardest task for individual Members and I think the hardest task for the House of Commons that has ever been laid upon it. That is a point every Government has to bear in mind in comparing the relative disadvantages. I may say that Motions of this kind were moved only about five times by the Coalition Government during its time, but the War occupied some years of its existence, and there was no regular or strong opposition during the Parliament which was elected in 1918. There were only five instances of a Resolution of this kind being moved, but in the great days of the Liberal party, since 1906 onwards until they finally went out of office, Motions of this kind appeared to the number of something like 30, and, as a Member who sat in Opposition during those years, I well remember the history of them, and some of those who are sitting opposite me now supported those Resolutions in those days.

The question arises: Why is it advisable to bring a Motion of this kind in at the present time? I will give the
House the reasons which have made us take this decision rather than the other course. We have already devoted three and a-half days on the Second Reading to this discussion of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill, and we have devoted about 18 hours in Committee. We have to show for that the disposal of six Amendments, and we have actually passed seven words. It does not require a calculation beyond the power of anyone in this House to find that if that rate of progress were maintained we might hope, if we sat continuously and did no other business and avoided too many all night sittings, to get through the first Clause by the end of August or the middle of September. I do not know if hon. Members can throw their minds back to the beginning of the Session when, during the Debate on the Address, I told the House that I hoped it would be possible to prorogue at the end of July and to start a new Session in November. I gave various reasons and all, I think, met with the approval of the House, because I remember they were received with general symptoms of applause and appreciation from all sides of the House.

When I look at the state of public business to-day, I can see it is not going to be easy to prorogue at the date I mentioned. From to-day until the last Friday in July, which is the date on which I had hoped to prorogue, and including the next three Wednesdays and two Fridays—which unfortunately must be taken from private Members—and allowing for the same Recess at Whitsuntide as that which we had at Easter—I should be very reluctant to ask the House to curtail that—we have at our disposal forty-four sittings. The remaining Supply days and the days for the Appropriation Bill, for the Finance Bill and the Adjournment Motions will take 24 or 25 days out of that time; leaving 19½ days for legislation and for contingencies. Now 16 days are set apart for this Bill under this Motion and that would only leave two or three sittings to dispose of various Bills which are at present upstairs and one or two which are very much desired but which have not yet been brought in. It seems very unlikely now that, in any case, we can finish the Session by the end of July, but by taking this time table at this juncture, I still
hope it may be possible to bring the Session to a close in the first few days of August and be able to do what I believe commends itself to the great majority of the House—that is to start the new Session in November and give the House an opportunity of getting on at that early date with the more important Bills which may be brought forward for next year.

I think it is quite possible that some Members may complain that we have put this Resolution down to-day and that there has not been time to put Amendments on the Order Paper; but I would point out that all we have done has been strictly in accordance with precedent on these Motions. While, very often, such an opportunity is given, I can recall at least two very important precedents in which no opportunity was given, and I think one of the reasons that perhaps makes it less important to do so is that any Amendments which could be or would be moved to a Motion of this kind are so obvious and have been moved so often before that there is no difficulty in handing them in and, after all, there has been a week-end in which to consider the matter. There is one further aspect of the matter of which I think the House ought not to lose sight There is one advantage about an allocation of time of this nature. It does away with the necessity for late sittings. There is nothing so demoralising to the House of Commons as many late sittings, and I am quite sure that by avoiding them we are consulting the interests or the great majority of the House.

It has been said that it is a great pity to lose the private Bills which would otherwise be coming on in the course of the next two weeks, but the House will remember that no private Bill, even if it has the good fortune to pass its Second Reading between now and Whitsuntide, has the remotest chance of becoming law. There are only two Fridays after Whitsuntide to be devoted to the completion of such private legislation as may be sufficiently far advanced then to be completed. There is one hon. Member, a supporter of my own, for whom I do feel rather sorry. That is the hon. and gallant Member for Gains-borough (Captain Crookshank), because he has twice been disappointed. A year ago he drew first place on a Wednesday night, and was defrauded of his place
by the general strike. He has drawn first place again this week, and has lost it owing to this time-table Motion. We have allotted to this Bill as many days as will allow altogether from beginning to end, 21 days of Parliamentary time for a Bill of eight Clauses.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: You have re-drawn the whole Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is why we have allowed so much time. We have given a liberal allotment of time. If I may make one observation to the House about the time and about these Resolutions in general, speaking as a Member who has had these Resolutions imposed upon him by a majority more than has anyone either in the Liberal party or the Labour party, I would say that these Resolutions are always opposed hotly and strongly, but while they are being opposed there is a feeling of profound thankfulness that a term is set to our labours and that we need not be sitting up all night. There is one more thing. After all these years nothing is more present in my memory than this, and I commend it to hon. Members who have not had my experience. When the Government bring in a Resolution like this, the Opposition in the atmosphere of this House feel that our liberties are being trampled upon. [Interruption.] We may tell the country what our sufferings are in the hope that we shall receive the sympathy and support of the people, but I have never known anyone in the country show the faintest interest in a Motion of this kind. All we were told when we were struggling against the tyranny of Lord Oxford and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs was "Get an with the business and do not talk too much." Hon Members of less experience than I have now had may, I hope, have better luck in trying to arouse some excitement over what they will doubtless represent to-day to be their hard fate. I believe this allocation of time, as I said before, to be both liberal and generous. There is ample time, if the House is determined to try to make a good job of this Bill. If there is a desire in any portion of the House to wreck the Bill, then no time would be sufficient.

Mr. CLYNES: Bearing in mind the nature of the Bill to which this Motion
relates, and the circumstances in which we happen to be met, I would say of the speech of the Prime Minister that for cool, unexampled audacity it could not be beaten. On Thursday last, when the business for the week was announced, the Prime Minister intimated, not in accordance with custom, that the Government reserved the right to themselves at any time to put down any Motion they thought proper, and I asked that that statement should be made more clear and that its intention should be revealed. The information was withheld from us, and it was only a little before the House rose on Friday that any representative of His Majesty's Opposition was informed of the Government's intention, and, as the Prime Minister has indicated, placing this Motion on the Order Paper in this way has only deprived the Opposition of the right or opportunity of placing Amendments down on the Paper in opposition to it. Well, what of that? What rights have the Opposition nowadays that they should boggle about being deprived of the chance of placing Amendments on the Order Paper? They can hand them in to Mr. Speaker or at the Table. The Tory party is going further even than we thought in its destruction of the constitutional procedure of this House and of the prospects of constitutional action in the country, so the Government have taken for themselves the shelter of the week-end in this manœuvre to see to it that we should have no chance of placing Amendments on the Order Paper in opposition to this Motion.
I say, earnestly and sincerely, for the Opposition, that, so far as we are concerned, in relation to such a Bill as we have to consider, we are prepared to give any amount of time for which the Government may call in order fully and fairly and freely to discuss the details of the Bill yet to be done, but we say that a Motion like this ought not to be tabled, because there is no urgency for the Bill; there is no demand for the Bill; there are no circumstances in relation to our national life, our trade, our business, or our prospects in any sense making any claim for this Bill; and if conditions of Parliamentary business require that time should be saved, the helpful and the genuine way to save Parliamentary time is no longer to waste it by discussing a Bill of this character.
The Bill goes far beyond anything suggested in the King's Speech and beyond any indication or intimation given to the House or the country before the Bill was introduced. Whatever we are, no matter from what class we are drawn, I would remind the Prime Minister that we are at least His Majesty's Opposition, and that we shall claim for that Opposition Parliamentary and traditional rights which until recently have been observed in the treatment of an Opposition.
I reminded the House on a previous occasion that during the whole of the time when this Bill was being discussed on Second Reading only 15 Members from this side of the House had had an opportunity to speak upon it, and I suggest to the House that in the Committee stages of this Bill the speakers on this side have addressed themselves to the Clauses of the Bill in a reasonable and commendable manner and have stated their case with goodwill and with restraint. On the other hand, the manner in which this Bill has been framed and drafted has made it the laughing stock of Tory lawyers. It is unquestionably the most controversial Bill of modern times. It is of this Bill that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, speaking in the country short of a fortnight ago, publicly intimated the desirability of leaving the framing of the terms of this Bill more and more to the Members of the House. It ought not, in any narrow sense of the term, to be merely a creature of the Government themselves. Where now is the Chancellor of the Exchequer to claim that freedom of speech in favour of which he spoke in the country only a few days ago? Freedom! Why, the Bill in some of its parts refers to coercion and to the offence that we would commit if we thought to coerce the Government. Only one Member on that side of the House dared to go into the Lobby against the Second Reading of this Bill, and what happened? Immediately the party Caucus called him to account. He was in effect reminded that he was not the representative of a Nottingham constituency; he was reminded that he was the delegate of a party. No, Sir, in every possible way conditions of Parliamentary freedom increasingly disappear.
I suggest to the House that this Bill is the very worst example of draftsmanship that we have known in modern times, and that the Government, by the
announcements they have already made of intended Amendments and of redrafting, have virtually presented us with a new Bill. Their proper course would be, not to use this instrument of the "gag" in order to force through a bad Bill, but, if they are bent upon dealing with the problem, to withdraw this one and to present one that would be understandable and that would express something like the meaning and intention of the Government and the House of Commons. I say that that is seriously a strong objection against this Motion. The doctrine or the procedure of the guillotine is a procedure which has arisen out of a former form of Tory opposition itself, and they have set an example for minorities in this House to oppose for the sake of opposition. The further Amendments to be moved by the Government relating to outstanding questions like strikes and penalties, and indeed to the main principles upon which these Clauses rest, constitute, as I say, a new Bill altogether, and if there ever was likely to be a reason for moving a Motion of this kind, this is not a time for it, and, so far as we are concerned, we shall not take the proposal in the ordinary Parliamentary form.
I gather from Ministers' statements in the country that the main reason for this procedure is that His Majesty's Opposition has refused to co-operate with the Government to get this Bill through. I wonder that the Home Secretary did not ask for the co-operation of the heads of Arcos in order to get the raid through as speedily and quietly as possible. According to this new Tory doctrine of what is the duty of those who are opposed to them, every burglar in Britain would have the right to seek for the co-operation of each policeman in the street in order that his risky task should be successfully accomplished. The best that can be said of this Motion is that it is an effort at contemptuous and disgraceful treatment of the Opposition. It is a gross abuse of the power of their numbers. It would reduce Parliamentary business to a mockery. We shall not be a party to it. We shall not stay here to take part in this part of the Parliamentary farce. We have once sat on that side of the House; we shall be there again; and we, therefore, enter our protest against this policy of "gag" and of bullying, but we leave the House at this moment with the consciousness
that before very long we shall come back with a majority which shall be used more fairly and reasonably than the majority of the present Government.

The right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members withdrew.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I deeply regret the scene which we have just witnessed, and I do not think it is altogether a matter for laughter. I think it is a serious matter, because it emphasises and accentuates what we do not want to accentuate—the struggle between classes in this country. I have witnessed scenes in this House, and I have never known them really do very much good to either party. It would be idle for me to get up and say that I am opposed to the Guillotine. I have sinned 35 times, according to the Prime Minister. I did not think I was quite as bad as that—but very few people do. I only recall being personally responsible for one, and that was the Insurance Bill. I cannot, at the moment, recall whether there was a Guillotine for the Old Age Pensions Bill. Perhaps someone who was in the House at the time may reinforce my memory. I do not think there was. [An HON. MEMBER: "No!"] Well, I am personally responsible for only one. The quotation which the Prime Minister was good enough to make from one of my speeches, I adhere to in every word. I have never thought it possible to get a highly controversial Bill through the House of Commons in anything like the time which would make it possible for Parliament to discharge its business. I have always held that view.
Whenever there is a Bill of which I do not approve, I shall certainly vote against facilities being given, but that is because I disapprove of the Bill, and not because I disapprove of the method of the Guillotine. I think it is a barbarous method. I wish it were possible for this House to find a better method, because my experience—and it is much longer and more varied than I thought—is that there are always considerable parts of a Bill which are never discussed. It does not really matter what the Opposition is, whether it is Conservative, Liberal or Labour, no Opposition can really play into the hands of the Government—let us be quite frank—by helping them to allocate the time. Ultimately, perhaps, it will be accepted as an essential part of Procedure
in the House of Commons to enable the Opposition to pick and choose its Amendments for itself, and allocate its own time. That was the hope of those who devised the Guillotine. It was said, "We will give six or 12 days," or whatever the time is, and that then the Opposition would sit down and say, "Let us allocate the time in the best way we can in order to criticise the Bill." No Opposition has ever done it, and I am afraid it is too much to expect that any Opposition will do it, and I do hope, sooner or later, we shall find a less barbarous method of dealing with the situation. But, putting it to me as the second oldest Member in the House, I say at once I do not believe it is possible to carry through a highly contentious Bill in this House without some procedure of this kind. I agree with the Prime Minister that if it were left to the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, even with all-night sittings, we should not get through this Bill by August.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Budget of 1909, for the carrying through of which in the House of Commons I was responsible. I carried it through without any Guillotine. We devised some process which was called the "Kangaroo." That facilitated matters, but, in spite of that, sitting, as the Prime Minister said, until five or six in the morning very often, we could only get through by the middle of December. We started, I think, in April. We sat right through the summer months. We hardly had any vacation at all—just about a fortnight, I think—and then we went on. I think it was bad business for everybody, and, honestly, I do not think it improved the Bill. It did not improve the Bill from my point of view, or from the point of view of the Opposition or anybody else. When the House of Commons has made up its mind that it is to proceed upon a certain principle, then the responsibility must be taken by the majority. They must afterwards give an account of what they do to their constituents. The worst of that sort of time method is that you make concessions which are neither one thing nor the other. They destroy the Bill from the point of view of the Government, and are of no use from the point of view of the Opposition. Most of the troubles that came from the practical working of that Finance Bill were entirely due to the fact that I had to give all sorts
of concessions in order to make any sort of progress at all.
Therefore, I have never been opposed—perhaps I am putting it too high; I have always been opposed to it when it has been proposed by somebody else—but I have never been opposed to some sort of time method for dealing with the situation, and, as a matter of fact, the parties, which by their arrangements, and by their character, and their temperament are more committed to legislative changes than the other party, have more to gain by precedents of this kind being set up. I always thought that. I always felt that when Lord Balfour used to steam-roller us in the old days up to 1905. I opposed every one of those Motions, but I felt in my heart that these were very excellent precedents which were set up, and which we followed and improved upon.
May I make one or two criticisms? First of all, I am bound to oppose this Motion, because I opposed the Bill, and any Opposition is, in such circumstances, entitled to vote against it, whatever they may think about the actual Motion submitted by the Government. That is their protest again the Bill. But I am going to make one or two criticisms with regard to the Motion itself. I think it is a pity that it was not put down earlier, in that it deprives the Opposition of the opportunity of putting forward Amendments. It is peculiarly a Bill where there is a suspicion that there is an attempt being made against organisations which are supporting one political party. Therefore, it was, I think, very important that there should be no suspicion at all that that particular party was not getting every chance and opportunity of putting forward its case. From that point of view, I regret there is not time to do it. Speaking for myself, I only saw this in the papers this morning. It did not really give time to examine the actual allocation, because within the time limit given by the Prime Minister there is a good deal to be said for a rearrangement. It did not give time for that, and for consultation. I think, on the whole, it would have been better if it had been possible to give a little more time to Clause 1. I am not talking now about the time which is allocated to the Bill as a whole.
Clause 1, after all, is the most important Clause in the Bill, and let us talk quite sincerely and openly with regard to it. I heard a good deal of the Debate. I only took part in it once, and, therefore, I was in a better position to judge from a detached point of view. I thought the Debate was a bona fide one, so far as I heard it. I do not say there were not speeches intended to be obstructive, but, in the main, it was a very able Debate, and a very able examination of the proposals of the Government, and I find what is quite unusual in these cases. As everybody knows, the Whips rather discourage speaking on their own side, and rightly so. Many a time have I approached the Whips, and said, "There are too many people on our side talking. You leave it to the other fellows." I have no doubt that is done now. The Patronage Secretary would not be doing his duty if he did not deprecate too much discussion on his own side. But I find on Clause 1 there were 26 Labour speeches—they were, of course, the main opposition to this Bill—but there were 19 Conservative speeches. That shows there was a good deal of doubt in regard to the draftsmanship of the Clause, and with regard to some of the provisions of the Clause. It was expressed in two able speeches, in my hearing, by supporters of the Government. They were two legal Members, who have made a thorough study of the Bill—both of them strong supporters of the Bill itself. But they passed very severe criticism upon the draftsmanship of the Bill, and no one can say it is quite satisfactory.
Take the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, at Swansea. I was in Wales, and, therefore, had an opportunity at the time of reading a full report of that speech. It was very entertaining. But his interpretation of Clause 1 was very different from some of the interpretations I have heard here. I will come to that when I come to the actual discussions, as it would be out of Order to discuss it now. But there is no doubt at all it was at variance with the interpretations given here on a very elementary matter. That makes it very important that Clause I should be very fully discussed. I do not know whether it is too late to ask the Prime Minister whether he could not, somehow or other—I am not at the moment asking for an extension of time;
if he can do it by an extension of time, all the better—but if he could give a little more time to discuss Sub-section (1), which is the vital Sub-section. There are very important Amendments there. Supposing you had an Opposition who fell in with this arrangement, and decided to make the best use of their time, I say it would be impossible for them to do it within the limits which have been allowed here for the discussion. You really cannot discuss the very vital matters which are in Sub-section (1) in the course of a single day.
I do not know whether it is possible for the Prime Minister to reconsider the question of giving, at any rate, even half a day more for discussing that very vital matter. It is far and away the most important part of the Bill. It is the thing which affects the vital relations of capital and labour, the power of labour to organise its forces in future within legitimate limits. I am assuming that the Government cannot depart from the principles they have laid down. That, I must assume. They have got a majority behind them, and the majority have declared repeatedly t at they mean that the Government shall carry out those fundamental principles. But I say that, within those fundamental principles, they could recast this Clause. I am convinced that there is a real danger in the Clause as it stands, that Judges might interpret it to suppress the very action which, even the learned Attorney-General in this House, and notably the Prime Minister, contemplated as being legitimate in future. There are many lawyers who take that view, many whom I see who are friendly to the Bill, but think it goes very much too far, and that the words ought to be reconsidered.
5.0 p.m.
Would it not be possible for the Prime Minister to give an extra half-day for the purpose of discussing that Sub-section? That is most important. I pass no criticism with regard to the rest. As guillotines go, I have seen worse ones than this. I do not know that I am in a position to criticise them very severely. The only guillotine for which I was responsible was very much more liberal than this, and that was a method which the Prime Minister might have followed, but it is, perhaps, difficult for him now to go back upon this guillotine Resolution.
I remember that when the Insurance Act was going through the House of Commons, though there was no very bitter feeling, there was a vast amount of discussion, a good deal of it being prolonged beyond a point which I thought absolutely necessary in order to sift and canvass the provisions of that Measure. The present Secretary of State for War was very largely responsible for that opposition. I think we allowed the first few Clauses in that Bill to be discussed quite freely, and then we had the guillotine, and my recollection is that we allowed about 30 days.

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Sir Laming Worthington - Evans) indicated dissent.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: At any rate it was very considerably more than this. Perhaps the Secretary of State for War has a better memory than I have as to that, because he was the man I most sat upon with that procedure; he was criticising us a little beyond the point of endurance. If the Prime Minister cannot give us a free discussion upon Clause 1 and upon Sub-Section (1) will he consider the question of at any rate giving more time for the discussion of Subsection (1) of Clause 1. That is the main suggestion which I make. With regard to the guillotine as a whole, I have nothing very much to say, except that I am bound to vote against it, because I am against the Bill.

The PRIME MINISTER: In answer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I do not wish to enter into any controversy as to past Motions of this kind, and so I will not discuss that. With regard to the time table, we have given a very great deal of consideration to it. We have had regard to the fact that already a day and a half of Parliamentary time—or more than that—taking into consideration the number of hours occupied—has been expended on Clause 1, and we have put down in this Motion two whole days for that Clause, one for the first Sub-section and one for the remainder of the Clause; and we feel that with the examination the Clause has already had and the position in which the subject is to-day, it ought to be perfectly possible for the House to complete its work within the
time we have put down. All those engaged upon the conduct of the Bill gave very detailed examination on Friday morning to the preparation of this Schedule, which we are convinced, having regard to the length of the Bill, is not at

Division No. 126.]
AYES.
[5.5 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davies, Maj. Get. F. (Somerset, Yeovll)
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lamb, J. Q.


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Elveden, Viscount
Loder, J. de V.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Erskine, James Malcolm Montelth
Looker, Herbert William


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.
Lumley, L. R.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Fermoy, Lord
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen


Been, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Fielden, E. B.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Berry, Sir George
Finburgh, S.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus


Bethel, A.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Mac Intyre, Ian


Betterton, Henry B.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
McLean, Major A.


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Sklpton)
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Frece, Sir Walter de
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Macquisten, F. A.


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Gadie, Lieut. -Col. Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-


Brass, Captain W.
Ganzonl, Sir John
Making, Brigadier-General E.


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Gates, Percy
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Margesson, Captain D.


Briggs, J. Harold
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Meller, R. J.


Briscoe, Richard George
Goff, Sir Park
Meyer, Sir Frank


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grace, John
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw.


Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Buchan, John
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Moore, Sir Newton J.


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Morden, Col. W. Grant


Bullock, Captain M.
Grotrlan, H. Brent
Moreing, Captain A. H.


Burman, J. B.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Burney, Lieut.-Com. Charles D.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hall, Capt. W. D'A. (Brecon & Rad)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Hanbury, C.
Nelson, Sir Frank 


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Caine, Gordon Hall
Harrison, G. J. C.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Campbell, E. T.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Nuttall, Ellis


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Hawke, John Anthony
Oakley, T.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Pennefather, Sir John


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
penny, Frederick George


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Christie, J. A.
Hills, Major John Waller
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Clarry, Reginald George
Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy
Preston, William


Clayton, G. C.
Holt, Captain H. P.
price, Major C. W. M.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Radford, E. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Remnant, Sir James


Colfox, Major Wm. Philip
Horllck, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Rentoul, G. S.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Colonel C. K.
Rice, Sir Frederick


Cooper, A. Duff
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Cope, Major William
Hudson, R. S. (Cumb'l'nd, Whlteh'n)
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Couper, J. B.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Hurd, Percy A.
Ruggles-Brise. Lieut.-Colonel E. A.


Craig, Capt. Rt. Hon. C. C. (Antrim)
Hutchison, G. A. Clark(Mldl'n & P'bl's)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craig, Ernest (Chester, Crewe)
Illffe, Sir Edward M.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Sandeman, N. Stewart


Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jacob, A. E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank


Dalkeith, Earl of
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Sandon, Lord


Dalziel, Sir Davison
Jephcott, A. R.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.

all ungenerous, and having regard also to the precedents, and we regret that at this moment we cannot do any more.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 259; Noes, 13.

Scott, Rt. Hon. Sir Leslie
Styles, Captain H. Walter
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W. R., Sowerby)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Winby, Colonel L. P.


Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Tasker, R. Inigo.
Windsor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George


Skelton, A. N.
Templeton, W. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Wolmer, Viscount


Smithers, Waldron
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'ge & Hyde)


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tilchfield, Major the Marquess of
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wallace, Captain D. E. 
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Sprot, Sir Alexander
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Wragg, Herbert


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Watts, Dr. T.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Wells, S. R.



Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Strickland, Sir Gerald
Williams. A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Commander B. Eyres Monsell and


Stuart, Crichton, Lord C.
Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Colonel Gibbs.


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)





NOES.


Briant, Frank
Harris, Percy A.
Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey)


Fenby, T. D.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie



Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.
Morris, R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Rose, Frank H.
Sir Robert Hutchison and Mr.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Scrymgeour, E.
Crawfurd.


Harney, E. A.
Strauss, E. A.

Ordered,
That the Committee stage, Report stage, and Third Reading of the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Bill shall be proceeded with as follows:

Orders of the Day — (1) Committee Stage.

Twelve allotted days shall be given to the Committee stage of the Bill, and the proceedings in Committee on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following table, and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table.

TABLE I.—(Committee Stage.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for bringing Proceedings to a conclusion.




P.M.


First
Clause 1 down to the beginning of sub-section (2).
10.30


Second
Rest of Clause 1
10.30


Third
Clause 2
10.30


Fourth
Clause 3 down to the beginning of sub-section (2).
10.30


Fifth
Rest of Clause 3
10.30


Sixth
Clause 4 down to the beginning of sub-section(2).
10.30


Seventh
Rest of Clause 4
10.30


Eighth
Clause 5
10.30


Ninth
Clause 6 to the beginning of sub-section(2).
7.30


Rest of Clause 6
10.30


Tenth
Clause 7
10.30


Eleventh
Clause 8
10.30


Twelfth
New Clauses, Schedules, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Committee stage to a conclusion.
10.30

Orders of the Day — (2) Report Stage.

Three allotted days shall be given to the Report stage of the Bill, and the proceedings on each allotted day shall be as shown in the second column of the following table; and those proceedings shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at the time shown in the third column of that table:


TABLE II.—(Report Stage.)


Allotted Day.
Proceedings.
Time for Proceedings to be brought to a conclusion.




P.M.


Thirteenth
New Clauses
10.30


Fourteenth
Clauses 1 and 2
10.30


Fifteenth
Rest of Bill, new Schedules, and any other business necessary to bring the Report stage to a conclusion.
10.30

Orders of the Day — (3) Third Reading.

One allotted day shall be given to the Third Reading, and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion at 10.30 p.m. on that day.

On the conclusion of the Committee stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without Question put.

After this Order comes into operation, any day after the day on which this Order is passed shall be considered an allotted day for the purposes of this Order on which the Bill is put down as the first Government Order of the Day, and the Bill may be put down as the first Order of the Day on any Thursday notwithstanding anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the Business of Supply, and Government Business shall have precedence on any allotted day except the sittings on the third and fourth Fridays after Whitsunday notwithstanding
anything in any Standing Orders of the House relating to the precedence of Business at different sittings.

Provided that, where an allotted day is a Friday, this Order shall have effect as if for references to 7.30 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. there were respectively substituted references to 1 p.m. and 3.30 p.m.

For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion on an allotted day and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at the time appointed under this Order for the conclusion of those proceedings, put forthwith the Question on any Amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and shall next proceed to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules moved by the Government of which notice has been given, but no other Amendments, new Clauses, or Schedules; and on any Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded, and, in the case of Government Amendments or of Government new Clauses or Schedules, he shall put only the Question that the Amendment be made or that the Clauses or Schedules be added to the Bill, as the case may be.

Any Private Business which is set down for consideration at 8.15 p.m. and any Motion for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 10 on an allotted day shall, on that day, instead of being taken as provided by the Standing Orders, be taken after the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or under this Order for that day, and any Private Business or Motion for Adjournment so taken may be proceeded with, though opposed, notwithstanding any Standing Orders relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order proceedings for that purpose shall not
be interrupted under the provisions of any Standing Order relating to the Sittings of the House.

On a day on which any proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no dilatory Motion with respect to those proceedings, nor Motion that the Chairman do report Progress or do leave the Chair, nor Motion to postpone a Clause, nor Motion to re-commit the Bill, shall be received unless moved by the Government, and the Question on such Motion, if moved by the Government, shall be put forthwith without any Debate.

Nothing in this Order shall—

(a) prevent any proceedings under which this Order are to be concluded on any particular day being concluded on any other day, or necessitate any particular day or part of a particular day being given to any such proceedings if those proceedings have been otherwise disposed of; or
(b) prevent any other business being proceeded with on any particular day, or part of a particular day, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House, after any proceedings to be concluded under this Order on that particular day, or part of a particular day, have been disposed of."

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at a Quarter after Five o'Clock.